TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE APRIL FOOLS.
WE pitied Earl GREY and his colleagues on Monday last, when the amendments made by the Commons in the Irish Suppression Bill were presented for the sanction of the House of Peers. Never before were men driven to such shifts to extricate themselves from the embarrassment in which the necessity of supporting these amendments involved them. As it was, they did not escape from the dilemma, but were gored by both horns of it. Earl GREY could not say that the state of Ireland had lately improved so much, that a less severe measure than the one which he had pro- posed, and which the House had passed upon the faith of his de claration of its absolute necessity, would now be sufficient for the protection of life and property : he was therefore compelled to as- sert that the bill was as efficient as ever, and that the amendments had not weakened its force. This also was the line of defence taken by Lords PLuils.srr and BROUGHAM, and maintained by them with professional hardihood. There was no lack of assertion on the part of the Ministry ; but the force of argument lay with the Opposition,—as we shall see presently.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, in reference to the amendment of the court-martial clause—one of those unimportant and trifling alte- rations by which all political offences are excluded from its opera- tion—put the question fairly enough. He said- " The question they had now to decide was, whether justice could be executed or not. If it could, the country ought not to be proclaimed, and courts-martial ought not to be adopted. If justice could not be executed, then courts-martial ought to have the power of trying those offenders who could not be brought to trial in the ordinary course of the law. If the latter was the case, then the amendments ought not to be agreed to ; if the former, the bill was unnecessary."
This statement received no intelligible reply. Lord PLUNKETT entirely shirked the question. Political offences were made triable by courts-martial, because jurymen dared not, or would not, do their duty. This was Earl GREY S argument, when he brought forward the measure, and dwelt so long and earnestly upon the impunity enjoyed by political agitators. Well—is this state of things altered ? is the courage or honesty of Irish jurors more to be depended upon now than some weeks ago? Ministers say that it is not; and yet declare in the same breath, that the prevision for the trial of political offences, which the House of Commons has struck out of the court-martial clause, was unimportant and unnecessary. Inconsistency, to use a very mild term, can go no further. Is this the straightforward, manly conduct, which would be worthy of Earl GREY?
But let us see what Lord BROUGHAM has to say about this fa- mous court-martial clause, and the amendments therein- " With reference to exempting certain offences from the jurisdiction of the courts-martial, he could not but think those offences were well and wisely ex-
cepted. The questions of combination and conspiracy were among the most difficult for jurors and even judges which come before our courts. It would be unwise to combine the enforcement of tithes and questions concerning it with the jurisdiction of a court. martial."
We agree entirely with the Chancellor. Verily he speaks like a Daniel. But why did he not favour his colleagues in the Cabi- net, when they were brooding over their " infernal" measure, with this sage opinion, of which he has at length been delivered? Why did lie not, in his place as a Peer of the realm, as the first law authority in the kingdom, advise the possessors of hereditary power and wisdom to except "certain offences from the jurisdiction of courts-martial," whose incapacity to decide rightly respecting them he has thus solemnly affirmed ? If Lord BROUGHAM can answer this question with credit to himself, we shall be rejoiced and surprised.
The Opposition, as might be expected, strongly objected to the adoption of that amendment which prohibits the Lord-Lieutenant from " proclaiming" a district merely because tithes were not paid therein. Earl GREY himself, indeed, seemed to dislike it as much as the Duke -of WELLINGTON. He was of opinion that " it had certainly made a great change in the operation of the bill ;" and " he approached it with great regret." The Duke of WELLING- TON declared that the effect of the clause would be expressly to exclude tithes from the protection to which all other kinds of pro- perty were entitled. Lord BROUGHAM made a joke of what is,. after all, no joking matter: at least the Premier thinks it rather a serious affair. But the Chancellor either was not aware of the opinion which Earl GREY had twice expressed in the course of the debate, or did not think it worth while to appear to be aware of it.
"He certainly could say nothing in its praise. It would be absolutely and utterly inoperative. It could not b°3, any possibility produce the result he sup- posed it aimed at, of crippling the powers of the clause, or save any wrong- doers from a particular mode of punishment. Besides, the provision in the clause was utterly inconsistent with the clause itself. The clause did not give any power of proclaiming a district, unless it were really in a state of disturb- ance; yet the provision set forth, that if any act of insubordation did prevail in a district, it shall not be lawful to declare the district merely on account of a peaceable opposition to pay tithes. A peaceable opposition to tithes !—why, they might well say that no proceedings should be taken upon a peaceable re- sistance to pay the King's taxes ; or if any persons attempted, in a peaceable way, to withhold the payment of their tradesmen's bills, or any thing else."
And yet he voted for this nonsensical clause, because he would not delay for an hour the passing of a bill, which Lord PLUNKETT declared that he had strong hopes there would be no necessity for enforcing iii a single instance. - . Really the union and consistency of these. statesmen is very Irish: Earl GREY brings forward the most fearfully penal mea- sure ever introduced into Parliament, and declares that the neces- sity for its enactment is so glaring and notorious, that all evidence to prove it is superfluous. He also declares, that notwithstanding the appearance of some more favourable symptoms, the bill is still required for the protection of life and property. In the course of the very same debate, the Irish Chancellor gives it as his opinion, that there may very possibly be no necessity for enforcing it at all. Again, an amendment is introduced by the House of Commons, which prohibits the " proclamation " of a district merely because tithes are not paid therein. The Premier observes upon this, that "it had certainly made a great change in the operation of the bill ;" and Lord BROUGHAM gets up shortly after, to inform the Peers, that this amendment is absurd, and " absolutely and utterly ino- perative! " This is treating Earl GREY very cavalierly. The Ministers have one powerful consolation in the midst of all this contradiction, inconsistency, and consequent loss of character. They have drawn the House of Lords through as miry a road as they have picked out for themselves. Hereditary wisdom gulped down the bill, though not without making many a wry face at it. Lords ELDON, WYNFORD, and ELLENBOROUGH knew that they were subjecting themselves to the scorn and mockery of the na- tion. It is lamentable and ludicrous to 'hear old Lord ELDON upon this point. His heart sinks within him when he thinks of what the "country papers" will say about the House of Lords, and his voting with Ministers for this bill. He seems to have very correct notions of what is actually passing in the minds of his fel- low-countrymen at the present time. The "country papers" will say, according to Lord Eenom, "No matter what the House of Lords says, or what the opinion of the House of Lords is ; we will go to the House of Commons and get all that altered." But Lord ELDON has got a character to lose, and he will appeal to his country-
" He would not stand before his country, and be abused as a man who would give up the constitution of his country, when he could say to that country, I did not consent to this bill, but on the responsibility of those who told us that Ire- land could not be saved without it.' If the whole people of England could be brought within a distance to hear him, he should declare to them, that he would rather suffer death than take away from the subject the right to trial by jury, and make him liable to be tried by courts-martial, if he had not thought that such a measure was absolutely necessary for the safety and protection of the peo- ple of Ireland."
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said that Lord BROUGHAM was making "April fools" of them all ; and the Duke of BUCKINGHAM spoke the truth. But what are the People of England to think of a set of hereditary legislators who allow themselves to be made "fools" of by a joking Chancellor? When we consider that the power of making laws which affect the lives and property of 180 millions of British subjects is in a great measure intrusted to these " April fools "—as the illustrious head of the house of TEMPLE styles himself and his brother Peers—we do not wonder that num- bers of sensible men, firm friends to good government and haters of revolution, are of opinion that Reform did but half its work when it purged the House of Commons of the Borough nominees.
Previous page
